elonafandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Pot for fusion/@comment-2169718-20130915034044/@comment-99.100.48.211-20130918095139
Thank you for stating your reasons. - "most appropriate" is subjective and opinion-based. If you're against subjective value judgements, you can't call to that. Setting that aside, even if I grant the assertion, their being the most appropriate places does not imply 'only', does not preclude other pages from being a worthy second. - The changelog being in search results is good, but you often have to know that there was a change to get benefit from it. Taking this issue as an example, the changelog entry is not even in the top ten results for 'Pot of fusion', because that's a term used everywhere in the wiki -- 'unknown seed' is even worse. - Amount of clickthrough determines how visible info is, not frontpage link or update frequency. If the changelog sees as many clicks on a given inquiry as the page for the actual content, then it's as visible. No more, no less. This harkens to the point above; when the changelog is the twelfth or even the fourth entry, it won't see as many clicks. - Always noting version changes in articles when you update is as objective and simple as never doing it, so there's nothing to recommend either there. And cleanliness is a separate matter entirely from omittance. If it weren't, deleting the page would be cleaner still. The point is to present info in an ordered, thorough, and readable format, not to be spartan and save bits. Merely by publishing info, you're already in the realm of subjective judgements about what's worth posting. - The 'chaos' that would be caused by this sort of aside is on par with the chaos caused in the real world when a company puts 'since 1875' or 'improved formula' on its product label, or when a coupon notes that it's "valid until 10/31/13" -- next to squat, negligible, possibly beneficial. Human brains are fabulous computers and can look past info that they don't need. What bedlam are you imagining? - In users, intuitive solutions are preferable to non-intuitive ones. This has to come before any discussion of objectivity versus subjectivity. My position is that it's intuitive to have it here where it's related to the object of interest, rather than confining it to the changelog just because it's a change. The fact that on this very page there are yet more longstanding notes about version additions and you haven't edited them out despite making something like six other edits to the same section in the last week suggests that you already identify on some level or that your brain, like everyone else's, is capable of passing over them when they're not of interest. - There is immense benefit to duplicate content. Tying a datum to the two most likely places for users to reach by searching will increase penetration over putting it in one. I'm not saying the changelog is bad or useless; I think it's quite dandy. But saying that it's the place for changes to go and that the article affected by the specific change can't have mention of it is a farce.